It says right in the article Cliff linked that they use it to “gain strategic influence in the U.S. decisionmaking process by developing access to policymaking circles and influential groups and increasing control over U.S. public opinion. These targets are assets that might knowingly or unknowingly help Russia gain long-term political influence through Russia's making relatively low-profile investments today” and “Russia has also sought to support and establish relations with social movements in the United States and Europe that tend to operate outside the traditional political party structure, such as secessionist movements in California and Texas.”
So I’m not sure why we’re suddenly pretending they don’t. Maybe Cliff should have read the article.
|